hardinparamedic: Jesus was a pretty cool guy. He hung out with thieves, prostitutes, and lepers and pretty much brought them out of their situations and helped them to be better people. He even healed a few.

This. Forever this. Jesus was everybody's homeboy, was accepting of all and didn't care about where you worshiped, so long as you had faith. Now look what happened... Reminds me of that line in Dogma (reformed Kevin Smith fanboy) when Chris Rock was talking about how upset J.C. was with us."...it bothers Him to see the shiat that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism.", this leads into the speech about how beliefs are dangerous, etc., which is also a good point, but this in particular really stuck with me, it helped me understand the concept of Jesus as guy who actually walked the earth as opposed to construct of a religion; gave me a whole new understanding of what the Christian faith was based on.

publikenemy:FTA: 'I am not religious, but it doesn't bother me if someone wants to plant a cross on the green. What I do think is that the gentleman should have gone about it in a different way.'

We have a rational thinker here...string em up

Yeah, I think this guy would have come off as less of an asshole if instead he took it back to the church and propped it up against their doors or something. More of a "keep your shiat where it belongs" message than just tossing it in the lake which is more likely to just piss people off.

Of course, assuming any of this is actually true. It's the Daily Fail, so probably not.

Marcus Aurelius:He said the issue had caused a 'great deal of upset in the village' and that Mr Pickard should have spoken to the local vicar if he took umbrage to the positioning of the cross

The vicar obviously didn't talk to him before putting up the cross, so why in God's name would he talk to the vicar before tearing it down?

Big amounts of secular THIS.

Epicedion:So if the local Nazi chapter had stuck a swastika flag out there, would he have been right or wrong to chuck it in the lake? I'm confused.

Also THIS godwin.

A group with ideals and values you disagree with who as a group have caused the agonizing deaths of millions and have a youth chapter to indoctrinate young people in the ideals and values before they have a chance to get a decent world view (I`m looking at YOU Christians) put up their symbol on public ground without consulting. Of course you should be vindicated in removing it.

We all know the cross being used for executions go back further than Jesus' death, but it is the symbol of his sacrifice.

As for the others like the word Easter, bunny and egg, I do agree we could find something that fits the actual meaning of the day that is being honored. That and Christmas being celebrated on Yule was set up by the Catholic church and no one bothered to do anything about it because of tradition.

lack of warmth:We all know the cross being used for executions go back further than Jesus' death, but it is the symbol of his sacrifice.

If we are using the symbol of his sacrifice then we should use a big X because that is the type of cross jesus would have been hung up on because they hurt more than a traditional cross type. Also the holes from the nails would have been in the wrists because if you put them in your palms then the flesh rips and you end up with big spock type V flippers on the end of your arms so everyone with stigmata who got holes in the hands instead of the wrists was making it up...

lack of warmth:Deep Contact: The cross goes back to ancient Egypt and even older.

Christians always use pagan symbols.

It's really funny.

Pick one.

We all know the cross being used for executions go back further than Jesus' death, but it is the symbol of his sacrifice.

As for the others like the word Easter, bunny and egg, I do agree we could find something that fits the actual meaning of the day that is being honored. That and Christmas being celebrated on Yule was set up by the Catholic church and no one bothered to do anything about it because of tradition.

The symbol of his sacrifice goes back to the spring equinox and the zodiac. The cross is just a compass. I love how people think they worship the Son of God and it really is the Sun of God.

jso2897:Shmopee: jso2897: Itstoearly: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Is Village Atheist an appointed or elected position?

It's the new politically correct term for "village idiot"

Yes, of course. Unlike religion, atheism isn't an ironclad guarantee of not being an asshole.

The snark! It burns! +1 to you, sir.

Who's being snarky? I'm just pointing out that there is no religion or lack thereof that will make you an asshole, or keep you from being one.

I got that, it's the subtle shade that your phrasing put on it that immediately calls to mind all the crazy shiat that gets done in the name of religion (e.g., Westboro, the Crusades, "good" Christians sending some poor girl death threats on Facebook because she had the nerve to want a cross or the commandments, or whatever it was, removed from her school, how it's okay to have nativity scenes in the park, but a Saturnalia celebration would last exactly no seconds anywhere, etc.) that just seems to be okay, whereas if a Satanist or a Wiccan wanted to throw up some imagery somewhere, they're immediately bad people and need to be banned from everything ever and hunted to extinction, but 20 years of priest/boy love scandals barely even make the ticker on CNN anymore; my point being, whether intentioned or not, it struck me as funny and I giggled.

hardinparamedic:katerbug72: It was 21-6. The atheist is a sore loser. Why should he care if they want to put up a cross? It's easy to ignore.

/atheist

Probably because the EU Charter on Human Rights, as well as the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 and the Equal Rights Act of 2010, establish the separation of Church and State - which explicitly forbids the use of public land to make an endorsement of religion.

Since we're on this topic, I need to put up a Nazi Swastica and a noose on public land to express the faith of the Aryan Skinheads. You really shouldn't care if I do so. It's easy to ignore.

CheatCommando:Shmopee: Also the Irish had some pretty good things to say about ole Adolf back in day as they were hoping his total destruction of England would mean the end of English rule

I think you mean the Kaiser in this case. Ireland was not part of the UK in WWII and spent the war neutral.

Nope, meant the Nazis, just bad phrasing on my part; the Irish Free State (IFS) was officially neutral at the time and many IFS fighters did fight for the Brits, but the pro-Republic government (the IFS was known as The Republic of Ireland as of 1933), had such a raging hate-boner for England they were secretly helping Nazi Germany in the hope that Adolf and co. would crush the living shiat out them; it was also part of the reason they gave England limited port access and what-not, they didn't want Britain invading for strategic purposes.

dready zim:lack of warmth: We all know the cross being used for executions go back further than Jesus' death, but it is the symbol of his sacrifice.

If we are using the symbol of his sacrifice then we should use a big X because that is the type of cross jesus would have been hung up on because they hurt more than a traditional cross type. Also the holes from the nails would have been in the wrists because if you put them in your palms then the flesh rips and you end up with big spock type V flippers on the end of your arms so everyone with stigmata who got holes in the hands instead of the wrists was making it up...

No, the Romans used the cross the way depicted for years. History channel did a special about the science behind the claim of how Jesus died, the nails would've been in the hands, but at the base of palm not the center. At the base of the palm you have a group of bones that do have a natural hole that can support your weight without tear out. The gap in the wrist is big enough to tear out if the person pulls hard enough, the place in palm cannot be pulled out by the person being executed.

As for the x being more painful, I don't see where changing the shape would mean more pain but would shorten the life a little quicker. The point of the traditional cross was to make the person suffocate from hanging by their arms, but also give them a chance to extend their life by giving them a foot hold to push up to get some breath. The feet were positioned to not allow the victim to stand for very long before going back to hanging by the arms. All the while not letting the victim to rest and rubbing their back against the wood. Typically they were up there for days constantly shifting their weight before finally giving in to the exhaustion. That is without the nails and severe flogging that came with more serious charges such as declaring yourself king over a Roman controlled land. They went on to explain why Jesus died quicker than expected, due to him collapsing while carrying the cross piece. You should check it out, it is all science based and proves the validity of the account given.

Rufus Lee King:Listen, if that sodding git, or whatever term they use over there, is 82 years old, he must have witnessed first-hand the things that Nazis were doing. He wants to act like one of them?

That's funny considering the Nazis' embraced Christianity when they came into power and Hitler realized he could never replace it with German pseudo-mysticism.

Gott Mit Uns means God is With Us. The Nazis convinced their supporters that they were the divine instrument of God on earth, intended to wipe the Jewish plague from creation. (I believe the phrase "They Reject the Christ and I hate them" was used during the Wannase Conference by a German law minister.)

katerbug72:hardinparamedic: katerbug72: It was 21-6. The atheist is a sore loser. Why should he care if they want to put up a cross? It's easy to ignore.

/atheist

Probably because the EU Charter on Human Rights, as well as the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 and the Equal Rights Act of 2010, establish the separation of Church and State - which explicitly forbids the use of public land to make an endorsement of religion.

Since we're on this topic, I need to put up a Nazi Swastica and a noose on public land to express the faith of the Aryan Skinheads. You really shouldn't care if I do so. It's easy to ignore.

Whatever floats your boat. Not my place to tear your shiat down.

That applies to the stuff in your own(church)yard. I wouldn't be bothered by whatever you choose to put there but no one gets to use public land to put up their religious displays. Put your Nazi or christian display up where it belongs and no one cares or tears it down.

Shmopee:CheatCommando: Shmopee: Also the Irish had some pretty good things to say about ole Adolf back in day as they were hoping his total destruction of England would mean the end of English rule

I think you mean the Kaiser in this case. Ireland was not part of the UK in WWII and spent the war neutral.

Nope, meant the Nazis, just bad phrasing on my part; the Irish Free State (IFS) was officially neutral at the time and many IFS fighters did fight for the Brits, but the pro-Republic government (the IFS was known as The Republic of Ireland as of 1933), had such a raging hate-boner for England they were secretly helping Nazi Germany in the hope that Adolf and co. would crush the living shiat out them; it was also part of the reason they gave England limited port access and what-not, they didn't want Britain invading for strategic purposes.

The main goal was just to get out unscathed, autonomy intact.

I was working on "the end of English rule" as the English weren't ruling them at that point, much to Churchill's annoyance.

lack of warmth:You should check it out, it is all science based and proves the validity of the account given.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It is perfectly possible that the story was recorded as it was because everyone knew what a crucifixion was like (they were not at all uncommon) . It is quite possible to write up made up or imagined events is a completely plausible way. I am not stating that the crucifixion did not happen, by the way, only showing that your argument is hardly convincing to anyone who is not already a believer in search of confirmation.

CheatCommando:Shmopee: CheatCommando: Shmopee: Also the Irish had some pretty good things to say about ole Adolf back in day as they were hoping his total destruction of England would mean the end of English rule

I think you mean the Kaiser in this case. Ireland was not part of the UK in WWII and spent the war neutral.

Nope, meant the Nazis, just bad phrasing on my part; the Irish Free State (IFS) was officially neutral at the time and many IFS fighters did fight for the Brits, but the pro-Republic government (the IFS was known as The Republic of Ireland as of 1933), had such a raging hate-boner for England they were secretly helping Nazi Germany in the hope that Adolf and co. would crush the living shiat out them; it was also part of the reason they gave England limited port access and what-not, they didn't want Britain invading for strategic purposes.

The main goal was just to get out unscathed, autonomy intact.

I was working on "the end of English rule" as the English weren't ruling them at that point, much to Churchill's annoyance.

Shmopee:CheatCommando: Shmopee: CheatCommando: Shmopee: Also the Irish had some pretty good things to say about ole Adolf back in day as they were hoping his total destruction of England would mean the end of English rule

I think you mean the Kaiser in this case. Ireland was not part of the UK in WWII and spent the war neutral.

Nope, meant the Nazis, just bad phrasing on my part; the Irish Free State (IFS) was officially neutral at the time and many IFS fighters did fight for the Brits, but the pro-Republic government (the IFS was known as The Republic of Ireland as of 1933), had such a raging hate-boner for England they were secretly helping Nazi Germany in the hope that Adolf and co. would crush the living shiat out them; it was also part of the reason they gave England limited port access and what-not, they didn't want Britain invading for strategic purposes.

The main goal was just to get out unscathed, autonomy intact.

I was working on "the end of English rule" as the English weren't ruling them at that point, much to Churchill's annoyance.

And hence my mea culpa on bad phrasing.

And I evidently need more caffeine. This is what happens when you get your first trouble ticket routed to you before you have even hit the shower.

CheatCommando:lack of warmth: You should check it out, it is all science based and proves the validity of the account given.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It is perfectly possible that the story was recorded as it was because everyone knew what a crucifixion was like (they were not at all uncommon) . It is quite possible to write up made up or imagined events is a completely plausible way. I am not stating that the crucifixion did not happen, by the way, only showing that your argument is hardly convincing to anyone who is not already a believer in search of confirmation.

Why? I wasn't trying to put down an argument, only discussing some of the symbols. The cross matters to those that believe, arguing won't help someone searching for confirmation. Jesus himself didn't use signs to convert, He gave signs to those that already believed. That is where they get 'Knowledge is the things seen, Faith is the things unseen. All will be brought to perfect knowledge.' If you don't agree with me, I cannot change that. However, keep searching science and history. Some things are true and some things are false, in time we will know which are which.

/more faith was shown by the Roman officer that asked Jesus to just say the word, to heal his servant. The officer had faith that his servant was healed before going home to see him up and restored. Others watched Jesus heal and still didn't believe.//I can't help you find confirmation to this story

CheatCommando:Shmopee: CheatCommando: Shmopee: CheatCommando: Shmopee: Also the Irish had some pretty good things to say about ole Adolf back in day as they were hoping his total destruction of England would mean the end of English rule

I think you mean the Kaiser in this case. Ireland was not part of the UK in WWII and spent the war neutral.

Nope, meant the Nazis, just bad phrasing on my part; the Irish Free State (IFS) was officially neutral at the time and many IFS fighters did fight for the Brits, but the pro-Republic government (the IFS was known as The Republic of Ireland as of 1933), had such a raging hate-boner for England they were secretly helping Nazi Germany in the hope that Adolf and co. would crush the living shiat out them; it was also part of the reason they gave England limited port access and what-not, they didn't want Britain invading for strategic purposes.

The main goal was just to get out unscathed, autonomy intact.

I was working on "the end of English rule" as the English weren't ruling them at that point, much to Churchill's annoyance.

And hence my mea culpa on bad phrasing.

And I evidently need more caffeine. This is what happens when you get your first trouble ticket routed to you before you have even hit the shower.

The words "trouble ticket" just keep rebounding around in my head and suddenly I hate my job a lot less. Godspeed, good sir.

hardinparamedic:Rufus Lee King: Listen, if that sodding git, or whatever term they use over there, is 82 years old, he must have witnessed first-hand the things that Nazis were doing. He wants to act like one of them?

That's funny considering the Nazis' embraced Christianity when they came into power and Hitler realized he could never replace it with German pseudo-mysticism.

[www.nobeliefs.com image 362x281]

Gott Mit Uns means God is With Us. The Nazis convinced their supporters that they were the divine instrument of God on earth, intended to wipe the Jewish plague from creation. (I believe the phrase "They Reject the Christ and I hate them" was used during the Wannase Conference by a German law minister.)

Yes, dictators will use whatever means at hand to control the a large group of people - religion, sociology, science (fake or otherwise), etc... That alone doesn't make any of them evil.

lack of warmth:CheatCommando: lack of warmth: You should check it out, it is all science based and proves the validity of the account given.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It is perfectly possible that the story was recorded as it was because everyone knew what a crucifixion was like (they were not at all uncommon) . It is quite possible to write up made up or imagined events is a completely plausible way. I am not stating that the crucifixion did not happen, by the way, only showing that your argument is hardly convincing to anyone who is not already a believer in search of confirmation.

Why? I wasn't trying to put down an argument, only discussing some of the symbols. The cross matters to those that believe, arguing won't help someone searching for confirmation. Jesus himself didn't use signs to convert, He gave signs to those that already believed. That is where they get 'Knowledge is the things seen, Faith is the things unseen. All will be brought to perfect knowledge.' If you don't agree with me, I cannot change that. However, keep searching science and history. Some things are true and some things are false, in time we will know which are which.

/more faith was shown by the Roman officer that asked Jesus to just say the word, to heal his servant. The officer had faith that his servant was healed before going home to see him up and restored. Others watched Jesus heal and still didn't believe.//I can't help you find confirmation to this story

You are the one that proposed the details proved the "validity" of the story. I was merely pointing out it did no such thing. The Godfather had a lot of scientifically correct stuff in its account, and it is a work of fiction.

CheatCommando:lack of warmth: CheatCommando: lack of warmth: You should check it out, it is all science based and proves the validity of the account given.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It is perfectly possible that the story was recorded as it was because everyone knew what a crucifixion was like (they were not at all uncommon) . It is quite possible to write up made up or imagined events is a completely plausible way. I am not stating that the crucifixion did not happen, by the way, only showing that your argument is hardly convincing to anyone who is not already a believer in search of confirmation.

Why? I wasn't trying to put down an argument, only discussing some of the symbols. The cross matters to those that believe, arguing won't help someone searching for confirmation. Jesus himself didn't use signs to convert, He gave signs to those that already believed. That is where they get 'Knowledge is the things seen, Faith is the things unseen. All will be brought to perfect knowledge.' If you don't agree with me, I cannot change that. However, keep searching science and history. Some things are true and some things are false, in time we will know which are which.

/more faith was shown by the Roman officer that asked Jesus to just say the word, to heal his servant. The officer had faith that his servant was healed before going home to see him up and restored. Others watched Jesus heal and still didn't believe.//I can't help you find confirmation to this story

You are the one that proposed the details proved the "validity" of the story. I was merely pointing out it did no such thing. The Godfather had a lot of scientifically correct stuff in its account, and it is a work of fiction.

Epicedion:So if the local Nazi chapter had stuck a swastika flag out there, would he have been right or wrong to chuck it in the lake? I'm confused.

No it wouldn't have been wrong. Because it's safe to say that the town is almost universally opposed to Nazism.

At its core, this is not a religious issue, it's a social one. Is it so hard to see that it was wrong not because it was a religious symbol, but because he knew it would piss off a majority of his peers? It's a small village of a 150 people. Going out of your way to offend them is the wrong thing to do. He could have accomplished his goal a lot more diplomatically, and had the opportunity to open up a constructive dialogue that would have probably furthered his own cause more.

Shmopee:The words "trouble ticket" just keep rebounding around in my head and suddenly I hate my job a lot less. Godspeed, good sir.

I generally don't see them, to be honest. I am the Resource of Last Resort and we had one early this morning. Still would have been nice to be a fully functional human being before the phone rang, however.

CheatCommando: Still would have been nice to be a fully functional human being before the phone rang, however.

I know that feel, bro. Last week one of my underlings called me to cover her shift seven minutes before it was supposed to start and I'd been out of bed literally just long enough to go take a leak. It was the best thing ever...

dennysgod:You know maybe this guy is right, maybe the cross shouldn't have been placed in a public area and should have remained on church grounds, but it's kinda hard taking the moral high-road when you're trashing someones property.

Crewmannumber6:Did the cross belong to the athiest? No? Then it's a destruction of private property issue, not a religious issue.

If it's private property, don't plant it in the middle of public land.

Besides, it's still private property, except now it's in a public pond.